On November 7, National Review columnist Jim Geraghty published this column, suggesting that certain states controlled by Republicans might wish to alter selection of presidential electors, so that each U.S. House district would elect one elector. The column has now been discussed in several other major publications, including the Washington Post.
Hmmm. Add to the minority rule gerrymander ROT in the USA regime ??? Duh.
1/2 votes x 1/2 pack/crack gerrymander areas = 1/4 CONTROLS.
How about directly start Civil WAR II ???
— do NOT pass go, do NOT collect a million dollars (to keep up with inflation since the 1930s).
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
This is similar to the system that was used by the two States we most closely associate with the Founding Fathers, Massachusetts and Virginia,used in 1789; and was one of the alternatives to the 12th Amendment proposed after the election of 1800/1801.
There was a trend towards election of presidential electors by district, which shifted to at-large election as popular election became universal.
In the case of the House of Representatives, Congress used its time, place, manner authority to require election by district (and even then there was sufficient resistance that this was not universal for over 100 years).
But there is not similar authority over presidential elections, and political parties coerced use of the current system.
Election by district would facilitate election of the presidential electors as individuals. Candidates might run as independents, and states might use Top 2 or the Louisiana system.
Election of the prime ministers of Britain, Canada, and Australian is by persons chosen from single-member districts. I would think most people would prefer living under their democratic norms, than Vladimir Putin’s Russia where the president is directly elected.
The more granular the selection of electors, the more likely it is that elections will be sullied by all manner of electoral fraud. We now have thirty or so states which are sufficiently “red” or “blue” as to make any futile efforts to swing their electoral votes in any direction. However when states are “swing states” the temptation exists, given the right conditions, to nudge that swing. Ohio in 2004 is an indisputable and nauseating example of what can happen. The election of 1876 provides four or five examples of states which were probably manipulated by bribery, extortion and threat of violence into desired results under the “winner take all” EC method.
Now, bring the determination of electors down to the CD level, and the temptation becomes even greater. Modern polling science makes it quite easy to accurately identify those CD’s which are “in play,” and thus potential targets for quasi-legal and outright illegal efforts to swing the votes in those districts. You name it – caging, “artful” deployment of voting machines in certain neighborhoods, bribery of election officials, etc. – when the election of a president comes down to swinging just nine or ten CD’s, we’ll see it all.
Those CD’s could be “swung” by moving or suppressing only a few thousand votes in each. Well worth the expenditure of time effort and money. On the other hand, move to the NPV system, and the prospects of swinging an election are diminished by the sheer numbers. It would be relatively feasible micromanage numbers at the CD level thru fraudulent activities. The prospects of changing a million or several million votes nationally, numbers which would usually be required to change election results under NPV, would be much more daunting if not impossible.
And another consideration is this. If my CD were “in play” under a CD-based system, I’d have to move to Canada for four or five months to get away from the candidates. The winner-take-all system has proved beyond any question that the candidates appear almost exclusively in those state that are up for grabs. The same tactic would certainly be applied at the CD level. Alternatively, if my CD were not “in play,” I would be loathe to leave the election of my president to those CD’s that were “in play.”
No thanks.
Take it, Jimbo…
Sounds good, that or go by percent (10 percent of the vote, 10 percent of the electoral vote).
It would be unwise to appeal to only swing CDs.
Look at the 2012 election when Romney said that Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were in play. The Obama campaign scoffed and ran up the vote in a few CDs in Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Madison; while voters across the two states took note of Obama’s narrow focus and elected Republican representatives.
If you like Vladimir Putin, you will like direct election of presidents.
As an outsider I’d have to say that this whole issue appears a pretty blatant attempt to ‘rig’ future presidential elections.
Of course, as so often, the results will not be quite what those proposing it expect. Lets say it elects Republicans when they clearly did not have the support of the majority of the American people. Well the unpopularity which ultimately results from all parties being in power too long will throw Congress and State Governments to the opposition and with the gloves off on electoral rules the days of the electoral college will be numbered…
Britain, Australia and Canada do indeed have their MPs elect the leader BUT their electoral districts are drawn up by impartial and non-partisan bodies. Many other countries do so via election by MPs returned under Proportional Representation.
Ahh…so all those other offices we fill by direct election are being won by ex-KGB agents.
Whatever does this say about the recent Republican near sweep?
As always, you offer an interesting, if kinda dopey, take on any issue, Jimbo. Thanks.